Downloaded. Couldn't find any info what has been fixed/changed???
Hey Dale, Like me,,,,(LOL) I usually wait until other people report back, but what the hell. I was getting "unable to obtain required memory" crashes constantly yesterday when trying to save as PDF, with SP5.0. This was a large (for us anyway, over 2000 parts) assembly. Spent most of the day restarting, and reloading. Did the whole job in 1/2 hour this morning with SP5.1. No Problemo Of course, I may be in for some unpleasnt surprises later in the day, but so far, so good. Mark
MM, you had a REAL reason to try the update. Glad it went well...initially. I indeed hope we are on to a new era in SolidWorks where major bugs become increasingly a thing of the past. Major bugs are just too costly for most companies & particularly individuals to be able to tolerate. Keeping 2-4 versions of SolidWorks active so you can "keep going" just doesn't seem like what I want to do. I want to see SolidWorks succeed, and that means I have to succeed in successfully using their software in the same year that I pay for the maintenance fee. I haven't heard much about the early 2007 releases, so I hope, indeed, that my earlier prediction of a "new era in SolidWorks" is starting to appear. Bo
Bo, I think they've done better "within" the virtual corner that they've painted themselves into. Remember when 10 service packs was the norm ?? I do. The biggest problem we have is the combined cost of ownership (in both time and money) of Microsoft, and Solidworks. The two are (unfortunately) joined at the hip in such a way that everything MS does affects SW in a way that's greater than the sum of the two. The situation is quickly reaching the point where it can be a negative ROI for small companies. This potenial scenario closely parallels the reasons why small companies couldn't afford $30,000.00 a seat software running on $40,000.00 UNIX workstations back in the late 80's to the mid 90's. The difference being we got in cheap, and things are evolving towards the same end result. Some of us have over 10 years worth of SW data, so in some respects, our relationship is similar to that between the junkie and the pusher. Solidworks made a major long term error in judgment by locking itself to Microsoft. Like any for-profit corporation they have to make a buck to survive. In order to generate revenue they have to appeal to the dim masses with flashy widgets. Since this "OS" (it's not really an Operating System. it's a huge pile of layered applications) is constantly evolving for "these" reasons, it is the poorest of "ALL" possible choices for technical computing. We SW users are paying for this on more levels than I have time to list. We're seriously considering letting ours lapse, for a year or more, just to see what shakes out. We have clients, and a reputation, that will allow us to do this. Most don't care what software, or version we use as long as "we" do the job. It's not the software that creates, it's the person using it. It's not like we'll be going back to drawing boards and pencils When the operating costs of any specific component start to threaten things like health insurance, it's time to step back and re-evaluate. I feel very fortunate to work for a company (family really) that puts the welfare of the people above all other considerations. Regards Mark
Mark, every single corporation & high end user has been bitten by the promises not delivered & glitches from the Redmond Gospel Comedy team, Ballmer & Gates. I would not want to tie my entire company's fortunes to be determined by what strings Ballmer pulls. I myself hear and see so much anger over wasted time, that I think the 'virtualization' of OS's is going to continue to evolve, and become more mainstream. Once I thought I would use only 1 OS, but now it is two every day, & given "progress" it would not bother me to run a 3rd OS, given the likes of Parallels. <http://www.parallels.com/> Since that virtualization trend is growing, I would hope that SolidWorks would make the jump to a better open technical computing OS, and (I never thought I would say this) that might possibly be Linux or Unix. It is not likely in the next few years, but I can still hope. With dual core laptops, and quad or 8 core desktops already being tested, there is a LOT OF HORSEPOWER available to do virtualization. In the past multiple OSs meant multiple hardware systems, but now Mac, Windows, BSD & Linux can run respectably on a workstation or high end laptop. That does change the reason for marrying an OS. Bo
Unfortunately we went to 2006 recently. Cost me a bundle of time over 2004 in performance. Funny thing was that we had a mix of legacy files going back to 99 that didn't give 2004 much of a headache. We HAD to convert in 2006 just to make things at least bearable. Out of all the new functionality the only thing that has really caught on is the method for making exploded views. No choice in that though. So you are right ROI is as important to maintenance as it is to a new purchase. Training and improvements in methods to utilize existing functionality has a far greater ROI.
Mark, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I will not be renewing my maintenance until they get these issues worked out. If they were to move to any *nix platform, I'd feel a lot better about things. I'd much rather have the software work and look plain, than have all the eye candy and ton's of bugs. Mark Mossberg wrote: .....
Perhaps we can use the acronym SWACTD (as in "I got swacked again before lunch."). SolidWorks And Crash To Desktop. Interesting comparison is that I don't recall the last time I had an appl. quit in OSX (BSD variant that it is). Bo
